Slashdot Mirror


ICANN Cracks Down on Invalid WHOIS Data

DotNM writes "Internet News reports that ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is beginning a crackdown on invalid data in the WHOIS database. In ICANN's annual report, they found that nearly 5000 of the 24148 complaints were due to inaccurate WHOIS information. Some of the domain names in question had the address information of known spammers in the database. Registrars, the companies you register your domains with, are under contractual obligations to ensure this information is correct and accurate. Do you believe this is a step in the right direction? Why?"

79 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. It's a rule, play by it. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just because a rule has gone unenforced for years doesn't make it an invalid rule. I think the Internet would become a much better place if everybody with bad WHOIS information lost their domains until they corrected it.

    1. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by Troed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... it would be a lot more useful if they cracked down on domain-owners not having valid postmaster@ and webmaster@-accounts.

    2. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by Frater+219 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Absolutely.

      The purpose of WHOIS contact information is to allow users and operators of other Internet sites to get in touch with you if your site is causing a problem. The Internet is cooperative, recall -- it could not exist at all without the thousands of sites and networks agreeing to carry each other's traffic. This cooperation requires that operators be able to contact one another in case of a problem. The alternative is that if I see anything even remotely resembling an attack coming from your network, I block your entire network -- regardless of whether you yourself are responsible, or some idiot who signed up as your customer.

      If you want cooperation from the rest of the network -- in the form of allowing your traffic rather than blocking it -- you have to be reachable in case of problems. You don't get to operate an Internet site and not be accountable for it, because your site's behavior impacts everyone else on the network.

      Your obligation to be reachable to other Internet operators does not go away just because spammers can abuse it -- just as a business's obligation to file incorporation papers (including a physical address) with the state doesn't go away just because the Mafia can search incorporation papers for your business's address and come around to demand protection money. The problem there is the Mafia, not the incorporation papers.

      If you are concerned about spammers taking your WHOIS contact information and spamming you, you have reason to be -- spammers will take email addresses from anywhere and abuse them. However, you should recognize that this is the fault of spammers, not WHOIS: put the spammers in jail for computer crime, and the problem goes away.

    3. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by JPriest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have registered a total of 4 domains, after using valid information on the first one I refuse to make the same mistake again. My first domain expired in 2001 and I still get credit card offers from it. Like it or not, it is still a public database containing personal information. I can't really blame people for using incorrect information.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    4. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree. Let's say I have my own little domain for my homepage. I don't really want everyone on the planet able to access my personal phone number and address.

    5. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      postmaster@ is required (RFC822 6.3, C.6), webmaster@ is just a convention, for now.

      RFC 2142, "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions" is a proposed standard and includes 'webmaster@', 'abuse@', 'noc@', etc.

    6. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by blutrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another thing that should be mentioned is it is very easy to forge an email address. I am able to run my own SMTP server and send forged emails to whomever I want (I don't, so don't flame me for that).

      Having the WHOIS access, as mentioned on the parent, allows spammers to grab our contact information and use their forged email systems to send out spam. I have heard of cases where an SMTP server will bounce a message back saying to resend in three hours. If the mail is resent in 3 hours, the mail is allowed back through. Similar systems exists that do similar mail authentication. However, I should not have to go through the trouble of going through all these security measures just to keep a person from sending me an email I do not want.

      Back to the original context, I believe that WHOIS information should be kept accurate and private. This will allow me, as a user, to run a website on a controvertial topic if I chose to, allows me to be and feel safer from disgruntles readers, and allow authorities to crack down on websites with illegal content.

    7. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, you can have a restraining order restricting the person from having any CONTACT with you, which includes email, phone, physical conversation. You are asking the court to restrain the other party from contacting you. I should know, Ive used one :)

    8. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by TekPolitik · · Score: 3, Informative
      Just because a rule has gone unenforced for years doesn't make it an invalid rule.

      Enforcing this rule for the ".us" domain name is to be required as part of the proposed US-Australia Free Trade Agrement - Chapter 17, Article 17.3

    9. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by cubicledrone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to make a dent in spamming, just take away their property(including house and car, in fact the food out of the fridge and their clothes too) and empty their bank accounts.

      If you want to make a dent in spamming, just violate the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. Simple!

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    10. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by S.Lemmon · · Score: 2, Informative

      A postmaster address is required if you're running a mail server...

      "[RFC822 6.3, C.6] requires the presence of a <POSTMASTER@domain> mailbox name on all hosts that have an SMTP server"

      However, a domain name in and of itself is NOT required to support SMTP or any other specific service.

    11. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by tyldis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off: I'm a poor student and live in Norway. I have a few hobby domains, mostly so I can run my own email configuration.

      I haven't recieved any snailmail spam, most likely because I'm not American, but one evening I got a [lovely] call from China. A female (yes, I was shocked myself, first time a girl calls me!) said something about representing some huge business.
      Her english was bad so I couldn't really hear what she was saying, but I finally figured out that they had heard about 'my large and great company' and that I was known worldwide for my splendid leadership and nose for business.

      I kinda freaked out, hung up and went for my tinfoil hat. I changed the contact info, but when my registrar complained that my address 'BOFH Avenue 666' was bouncing I had to change it back.

      Bottom line, I would very much appreciate some kind of mechanism that would protect your privacy a little bit better. The problem is that the Internet is global and legislation is very different around the globe so the solution would have to be technical.

    12. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Informative

      >> postmaster@ is required (RFC822 6.3, C.6)

      > Oh dear you thought they were standards,

      RFC 822 *is* a standard. It is also known as STD 11, "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages".

      --------- *snip* ---------
      6.3. RESERVED ADDRESS

      It often is necessary to send mail to a site, without know-
      ing any of its valid addresses. For example, there may be mail
      system dysfunctions, or a user may wish to find out a person's
      correct address, at that site.

      This standard specifies a single, reserved mailbox address
      (local-part) which is to be valid at each site. Mail sent to
      that address is to be routed to a person responsible for the
      site's mail system or to a person with responsibility for general
      site operation. The name of the reserved local-part address is:

      Postmaster

      so that "Postmaster@domain" is required to be valid.

      Note: This reserved local-part must be matched without sensi-
      tivity to alphabetic case, so that "POSTMASTER", "postmas-
      ter", and even "poStmASteR" is to be accepted.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    13. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by Bagheera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want to make a dent in spamming, just violate the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. Simple!

      1st Amendment: Spam is not protected free speech. Commercial speech, which the vast majority of spam is, isn't covered here. We are talking about people who are selling you herbal viagra and the like. Unless you somehow want to include SPAM in a religious context?

      4th Amendment: While I certainly don't support pressing the fourth amendment, the government has already set numerous precedents with the (failed) War on Drugs when it comes to seizing property. Ask any boat owner who lost their boat because one of the crew snuck a joint on board, and they got pegged with the Coastie's Zero Tolerance policy. Personally, I find drug dealers less offensive than spammers. People GO TO drug dealers for their product. Spammers force themselves into your in-box and around your filters.

      Note that the government can say it's OK to seize spammer's assets - like they did with drug dealers, and the seizure then becomes lawful in any case.

      5th Amendment: How are you applying it here? The 4th amendment covers search and siezure. The 5th would only apply if we assumed no process.

      6th Amendment: Doesn't appear to apply here. The original comment about seizing spammer's

      8th Amendment: Define "excessive" in this context? Is it somehow OK for a spamemr to send out 5 million bulk emails to people who didn't want them, using machiens that were compromised, on someone elses network? Would, say, ten cents per spam for bail be adequate?

      I seem to remember the precept that "Illegally acquired" assets are forfiet. Since spam is, in many cases (and we would assume that we are not going after "legit" marketers here) illegal under one law or another, it's a safe bet that the spammer's assets would count as "illegaly acquired."

      The constitution is a great document, and it's already suffering a lot of abuse at the hands of the (past, present and future) administration. But siezing a spammer's assets doesn't count as abusing the spammer's constitutional rights. It counts as letting the punishment fit the crime, and serving justice in the public interest.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
  2. Lots of useless data in there by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I looked at using the whois db for my IP to city project, but rejected it because (a) it's forbidden [which was the most important reason, honest :-), and (b) the correlation between locations I did know and what was in the whois DB was pretty poor.

    So I just depend on good folks like yourselves to fill in the data. I think that gets around the various patents that Quova etc. have got on populating a city/ip database as well :-)

    Frankly I'd give it about 50% accuracy, and I'm approaching that without using it at all...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Lots of useless data in there by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the DB is a bit cleverer than just trusting the user, it takes a track history into account... Even when someone does put the wrong city in, simply to screw it up, as soon as 2 people with different IP's do it correctly, the correct city will appear. Since you can only upload info for your own IP address, and it works on a /24 block, it should recover from bad input data over time...

      As for maxmind (and quova), I think you'll find you pay for anything other than the country data. Hostip gives you the city if it can...

      Regardless, one of the points is to try and analyse just how much wrong data is entered, when you let the net as a whole put info into a system, so I'm happy anyway, and if it turns out to be a useful resource, so much the better :-)

      It's always easier to knock something down rather than build it up, isn't it ? Let's just see how it evolves over time :-)

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    2. Re:Lots of useless data in there by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, if there's no data to be had, there's nothing anyone can do. I do think that's a pretty statistically insignificant proportion of IP addresses though, even with AOL doing it...

      Some NAT firewalls send extra headers (X-NAT-PROPOGATED-FOR') similar to proxies ('HTTP_FORWARDED_FOR' and similar), and I try to pick up on those where I can, but at the end of the day, any system has to have *something* to work with.

      The fraction of IP addresses that oscillate or change city a lot is very small (1%). The vast majority of the located addresses that I have don't change at all.

      As for relevance, well as I've mentioned before it's an experiment. If it turns out to be useful, excellent; if not, well I have some interesting data to play with :-) So far it looks promising, but it's very early days.

      Simon.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
  3. Good for spammers by anti11es · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I have mostly correct information, only because I don't want to lose my domain over something like this. What I really hate about having all this information public is I get a lot of spam (both email and snail mail). Email isn't a problem with good filters, but there isn't much you can do to "filter" out the snail mail, you at least still have to throw it away. Spammers must love the whois database, and they'll love it even more when all the data is valid.

    1. Re:Good for spammers by robogun · · Score: 4, Funny
      What I really hate about having all this information public is I get a lot of spam...

      That's the thing, all right. I'll change my domain's address from AL Ralsky's residence when they crack down on WHOIS spamming.

    2. Re:Good for spammers by merdark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I couldn't give two flying fucks about your "privacy" issues. If you're so paranoid you won't put your info into the WHOIS, then just DON'T BUY A DOMAIN NAME.

      Well, I don't give two flying fucks about your "valid WHOIS" issues. I have a private site. It's not for you, it's not for others, it's for me. It recieves MY mail, and provides services to select friends. That's all it does.

      I should not need to give out all my contact information to the world just so I can locate my damn server on the internet easily.

    3. Re:Good for spammers by Metaldsa · · Score: 2, Funny

      " What I really hate about having all this information public is I get a lot of spam (both email and snail mail)."

      Just this morning I did the classic, rip up all the junk mail and use their prepaid envolopes to ship it back to them. It cost them stamps, time to open it, and to throw it away. And it was fast and fun for me!

    4. Re:Good for spammers by cscx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      WRONG. If you have a "private site" all you are entitled to is giving out your IP address.

      It's not for you, it's not for others, it's for me.

      That's too bad because the DNS is a PUBLIC database. The Internet is PUBLIC. You don't make the rules; ICANN does. If you don't like it -- tell your friends to set up their own DNS servers with pointers to your IP.

      I should not need to give out all my contact information to the world just so I can locate my damn server on the internet easily.

      Again, that's your opinion, but you don't make the rules, bud. If you want to "locate your damn server on the Internet easily" then why don't you try writing your IP down and keeping it in your wallet. Otherwise, stop whining, and play by the rules.

      Do you also think you shouldn't have to register your car, or get emissions testing, because you're better or your privacy is more important than anyone else?

      Do you fill out your Tax Return as "John Doe, 123 Fake St., Anytown USA 12345?"

    5. Re:Good for spammers by Animaether · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's always dyndns if you want your server easily accessible, whilst not wanting your information too public.
      I kno www.SomeNameHere.com looks cooler, but since it's really a private little thing, I'm not sure that should be an argument.

  4. Change of the rules by Leffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I strongly think that there should be a correct address avaible for each and every domain name out there. But! I don't think letting it out to the public is a very good idea. I can think of numerous incidents where evil people obtained the addresses of targets from their domain names. It would not be good to hide this information from the police as they can surely obtain some valuable information from a registry like this :)

    So, change the rules to only let the magic people that operate the internet and the law see it.

    1. Re:Change of the rules by Fastolfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think this is very practical. How do you define who the "good guys" are? How do you keep the information away from the "bad guys"?

      Every Joe in the country does not need his own second-level DNS domain. For those that believe they have a solid reason to have their DNS domain parented that far up the DNS hierarchy, they need to be aware that public registration is a requirement for that.

      I don't really see a problem with that, especially for domains like ".com", which are meant to be commercial.

      Now, for the new TLDs like ".name", I might see a case where DNS registration might not need to be accompanied with a publicly-visible registration, but for the rest, why not? It helps everyone identify who's responsible for a domain so that problem and abuse reports get handled in an efficient manner.

      If we pull domain contact information from the public, someone still needs to be an effective first line for abuse and problem reports. If someone has a misconfiguration or malicious user that's impacting my network, I'd better damn well have a number I can call to get that issue resolved. If I can't get that in the WHOIS database, I'd better be able to call someone who can obtain it on my behalf.

      I guess for me, it boils down to having responsible contact information available for every netblock and DNS domain that's registered. This doesn't necessarily need to be the end user (and in the case of third-level DNS domains or a customer's small netblock, it isn't even today), but if users are going to register assets high enough in the "tree" (second-level DNS domains and large IP netblocks), they need to accept the responsibility of keeping valid contact information available to the public, because nobody else is going to do it for them. You're free to sub-delegate those resources (third and fourth-level DNS domains or smaller blocks of IP addresses, for example), making you the contact for those end users, or if you choose to require their contact information be publicly available, they would be. It's just gotta be someone. The gTLD registrars I don't think are staffed to be that someone.

      My two cents.

  5. First, ICANN should crack down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the people abusing the WHOIS data for spamming. If I didn't get so much damn spam (not just email, but regular mail!), I wouldn't be so included to falsify my data just enough to avoid it. If they call me on it, whoops, typo! Sorry!

  6. Ironic by shirai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember I got this email from NetworkSolutions promising to hide your contact information so I looked it up in my email archive. It costs an extra 5 bucks and promises to protect you from spammers and telemarketers.

    Something about this is ironic.

    Someone needs to speak to NetSol about the ICANN report. :)

    -----
    Protect Your Privacy
    from Spammers and Telemarketers

    When you register a domain name, your address, e-mail, and phone number are published in the public WHOIS database. ICANN requires this personal information to be available for anybody to view on the web. With
    Private Registration you can deter spammers, telemarketers, identity thieves, harassers, stalkers and others who access this database.

    Private Registration provides you with alternate contact information for your domain name registrations. The contact information you want to keep private is kept out of the public WHOIS database.

    For a limited time you can add Private Registration to each of your existing domain name registrations for the introductory price of just $5 a year. Terms and conditions are included in our Service Agreement.

    To add Private Registration
    1) Log into your Network Solutions Account
    2) From the Account Details page, click on one of your domain names
    3) In Domain Details, click "Make this a private registration"
    4) Check the domain name registration(s) you want to make private and
    click continue

    Introductory Offer Only $5 a year

    --
    Sunny

    Be my Friend

    1. Re:Ironic by TwistedSquare · · Score: 4, Informative

      godaddy offer such a service as part of registering with them (for a little extra). They put their details in and forward all mail on to you. Great solution really :) This way you are contactable but your address remains private

  7. We can do it. We have the technology. by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The US Postal Service, along with most of its counterpart postal authorties around the world, sells a master database of all "deliverable" addresses to vendors so that they can create services that will easily detect incorrect addresses such as streets that don't exist in the given town, or a number that doesn't exist on a real street. In short, if you have this software, you can reliably predict if the postal serivce would bounce a piece of mail as an invalid address and know why.

    It'd be interesting to see what would result if WHOIS is washed against such a list...

    1. Re:We can do it. We have the technology. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The US Postal Service, along with most of its counterpart postal authorties around the world, sells a master database of all "deliverable" addresses to vendors so that they can create services that will easily detect incorrect addresses such as streets that don't exist in the given town, or a number that doesn't exist on a real street. In short, if you have this software, you can reliably predict if the postal serivce would bounce a piece of mail as an invalid address and know why.

      Most people, in fact all breathing people around the world, realize that almost any town bigger than 50 people has a "Main Street". In short, if you put "25 Main Street" and then the name of any city or town in the entire US, you can reliably predict that it will pass the deliverable address database checks with flying colors.

  8. Fake addresses necessary by fastgood · · Score: 3, Funny

    The spam kings don't mind having to leave valid contact info,
    but obviously draw the line on accurate email addresses that
    would leave them open to receiving UCE.

  9. Don't want your information public? by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't fake your info, just get a private registration:

    https://registrar.godaddy.com/dbp.asp?isc=&se=%2B& from%5Fapp=&prog%5Fid=GoDaddy&authGuid=

    It only costs 2-3$ a year more than a normal domain, and the domain is registered in the registrar's name so your info isn't public.

  10. crap! by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    guess I better change my information to something other than j03 c00l l33t

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
  11. I second that motion by broothal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes I believe this is a step in the right direction. As a matter of fact, I believe it's about fscking time they cleaned up their act. I don't know what percentage of those with fake info are spammers, but I do know, that 99% of the spammers has fake whois information. This makes it pretty hard to track them down, and hit them where it hurts - on their pouch. Spammers couldn't care less about losing an account or two - there's only one thing that can hurt them - that's going after them and their money. Fake whois information was an effective shield against that.

  12. This policy sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spammers are a problem, but this is a terrible way to deal with it.

    What if I want to be able to host a website realtively anonymously, so that people don't know that I am running the website?

    For example, what if I were gay, and wanted to host a website about gays, but I didn't want my employers to be able to do a search and find out that I am gay so they can discriminate against me?

    Also, spammers and other marketers harvest the info from the registration datatbase. Back when the Internet was all educational facilitities, requiring people to register who they are made sense. Now it does not.

    Hopefully this policy will not affect services that act as proxies to register names under their name rather than the name of te acual server owner.

    1. Re:This policy sucks. by Cipster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also what if I hosted a website that said unpopular things about the Government or the Church of Scientology etc. Do I really want to be able to be harassed/tracked down?

  13. I love my hosting dudes by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guys I bought hosting from also registerred the domain for me, and put in their info for the whois. This way I don't get any lamers using it to spam me.

  14. Nobody cares about mining data from WHOIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know that huge, 5+ paragraph bit of text you get with any WHOIS query that's really damn annoying?

    An employer who shall remain nameless used the WHOIS database to get sales leads. When they got blocked for too many queries per day, they simply set up more systems- they were blocked by specific IP, not range.

    The most amusing part was the nonchalant reaction when said employer called Verisign and asked if they could pay for more access, the answer was no, but when Verisign was told "we'll be accessing the data anyway", the answer was "okay". You'd think it would be more along the lines of "you do that, and you'll be violating our terms of use and we'll sue the crap out of you".

    Do you really think Verisign gives a crap about the privacy of info in the whois database?

  15. Not sure if it's a good idea by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 4, Funny

    But if you really want to make sure you don't get snail mail use your address line 2 with a phrase that will make the mail get destroyed such as: "THIS MAIL MAY CONTAIN A BIOLOGICAL VIRUS"

    Not sure what the legal ramifications/consequences of doing so might be, so do it at your own risk.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  16. ramblings... by koody · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I can see why the autorities would want (need?) to have information about who owns a domain, the whois database as it currently exists is a simple and fast way for spammers to get email addresses.

    Some whois databases already put the e-mail address in an image so that spiders cant harvest them, most do not. This means that a first timer will quickly find his/her e-mail address useless becuase of the sheer amount of spam the address gets.

    Then there is the question of privacy and personal safety. Let's say I believe that some cult exists only for the sole purpous of ripping people off, and I put up a web site warning other people and telling them of my personal experiences. The cult memebers that feel outraged by my blasphemy might look up who I am by the database, and I would be risking life and limb by putting opinions on the web.

    Now someone is bound to ask "Hey, what about kiddy pr0n". Well, that's why I think the autorities should have access to that information, just as they have some other rights not bestowed upon us regular joes.

    The next argument will then prolly be
    Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free.
    - Benjamin Franklin

    I think this is hypocrisy and not even quite realistic. It's easy to quote famous people from behind a keyboard, but I just wonder how many of the slashdot crowd would actually put the money where their mouth is. After all, living together is but a series of compromises. No one can live their lives as they whish. Chance and other people will prevent this.
    And as someone said

    No man is an island,
    Entire of itself.
    Each is a piece of the continent,
    A part of the main.

    But I digress...

    1. Re:ramblings... by Nutt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The key word in Ben Franklin's quote was temporal. If we could give up a little freedom for permanent safety I doubt he would disagree. However, giving up freedoms that, in the long run, won't make us any safer is just foolish.

      I don't think that this scenario can be aptly described by Ben's quote. This is a decision that may increase people's freedom to not be harassed by spammers. Granted, there will need to be policies to keep personal information intact. Perhaps they should make all information that can place a person at physical risk (address, phone number, etc) only accessable to police and other law enforcement and provide non-risky methods of contact via email or instant messaging. They could even run as an intermediary where people write to the registrar and the registrar forwards the information to the domain holder thereby insuring that no personal information is passed around. Heck, now that I write that, I think it's a great idea.

    2. Re:ramblings... by Fastolfe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't about making ownership and contact information available to "the authorities". It's about being a good Internet entity and making yourself reachable when problems on your network arise. These could be connectivity problems, configuration problems (maybe your mail server is rejecting all mail) or abuse problems, where a DDoS drone on your network is causing problems elsewhere.

      The rest of us hurt when your DNS domain information is bad. It's not about turning the domain owner in for kiddie porn found on his Interweb site, it's about being responsible. If you want to register a second-level .com, you need to provide contact information like every other .com. That doesn't have to be you, but it has to be someone that can take ownership of the problem (and call you privately if necessary).

  17. I think it's good by Himring · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I recently received a letter indicating that the email address I had listed in the whois for my domain was invalid and that if I didn't update it I could lose my domain. I promptly did so. I both did not want to lose my domain, and was glad to see they are keeping that information accurate.

    For intents and purposes, we're dealing with addressing, and just like each physical address the post office deals with needs to be as accurate as possible for mail to be delivered effeciently, so do the cyber addresses that exist need to be in order for things to work correctly and effeciently.

    I work at a corporation where a former engineer setup several hundred remote domains with all servers having the exact same host name. This meant for years we could only utilize the network on an IP level (e.g., all scripts and so forth not being able to use hosts names, but instead using the differing IP addresses of each server). Now, I know there are ways around this, but logistically, we had to wait to "fix it right" and have now done so, but the point is, fore-thought into proper addressing, accurate information, etc., when dealing with networking -- or the postal system -- is essential. Keeping things up-to-date is also essential.

    We bitch about mail being slow, but how many of us haved moved and then taken the time to inform each addressy of that move especially when the postal system lets us know to do so by still delivering the mail to us with the little yellow "inform sender of address change" sticker?

    I'm glad to see the enforcement of accurate information take place....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  18. Wrong. by morelife · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The registrar should be required to verify, not only at purchase time, but on a regular basis, the billing address for the domain registrant. The whois information should not be required to be public - since it contains addresess, phone numbers and email addresses. Yes, you could get this information somehow if you looked - but this information should not be made public in the context of a simple directory listing.

    Above all it's stupid. Anyone putting correct information in there is not breaking the law anyway.

  19. Excellent move! Make domain owners responsible. by bigberk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think this is an excellent move. As an anti-spam activist, I frequently report blatantly invalid WHOIS contact info to both the registrar and to ICANN -- and never hear back from anyone. It's amazing when you see spammers' domains with fake cities (in the wrong country), blatantly invalid email addresses, etc.

    I can understand that some people have reservations about posting their private information in public databases, but options such as PO Boxes are available (I use a PO Box myself). Also think of it in context: if someone knows your name and wants to find your address, they can easily do so anyway. You can also give a cell phone number instead of a home phone, of course.

  20. ICANN't by TheUnFounded · · Score: 2, Insightful

    believe their gonna force me post my personal information on a global public database. I have very good reasons for NOT posting it.

    1) I don't have a correct email address listed, so I don't get spam.
    2) I don't have a correct snail mail address listed, so I don't get junk mail
    3) I don't have a correct phone number listed, so I don't get telemarketers.

    Seems to me like this will be a huge benefit to any company who's ever solicited me in a way I hate. Score: Businesses, 1; Users, 0

    1. Re:ICANN't by rainwalker · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is this "+4 Insightful"? If you don't want to publish your contact information according to the rules dealing with high level domains, then don't register your own domain name! It's not like having a .com or .net domain is a right or something. If you can't agree to the rules, then don't register domains.

    2. Re:ICANN't by Fastolfe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What happens when a host or a user on your network starts spewing forth harmful data (say, a DDoS attack)?

      If it takes me a week to wind my way through the legal system because you chose to make it difficult for me to contact you, you can bet that I'm holding you partially responsible for the damages that extra week caused.

      WHOIS contact information isn't about documenting your name and address for Big Brother, it's about being a responsible Internet organization. No one is twisting your arm and saying you have to have an Interweb presence with a .com DNS domain, but if you feel that it's necessary to have a presence that high in the DNS tree, someone needs to be reachable in the event you have a problem. The only one higher in the DNS hierarchy is the "com" domain, and I doubt ICANN or a gTLD registrar is going to take my calls about one of your users.

      If nothing else, at least use the contact information of an agent (lawyer) or a proxy service (like Domains By Proxy), so that at least we have some path to get ahold of you if we need to.

  21. define "invalid" by zaren · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have phone numbers in my whois that don't go to my home phone - they go to The Telemarketer's Nightmare because I sas sick of credit card and health insurance salesmen calling me trying to sell me stuff because they scraped my home number from my whois info. While not *my* number, they ARE valid phone numbers. Everything else in my whois info is legit, so I can be contacted by email or snail mail.

    --
    Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
  22. Proxy Registration Services by Jonathan+Quince · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who fear stalkers, etc., there are services like Domains by Proxy (related to the registrar Go Daddy). These services will register the domain on your behalf; they require valid contact info from you, and they put their own contact info in the WHOIS database. This is technically in line with the ICANN rules because the proxy registrant is the real registrant of the domain. (Although they have a contractual obligation of doing it on your behalf.)

    If you break the terms of service -- for example, if you use the domain for spam support or to commit illegal activities -- the proxy registrant will expose your real identity. Otherwise, your privacy is pretty well protected with these services.

    I've used those types of services (including Domains by Proxy) to register domains on behalf of minor children who shouldn't have their contact info exposed online, and for other purposes requiring some level of privacy. For my own domains, I'm not afraid to use my valid PO box address and phone number.

    (Note: I am not affiliated with these services in any way, except as a customer.)

    --
    Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
  23. My experience by macdaddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was an unused domain I wanted to purchase a year or so ago. They guy paid in 10 years in advance for the domain. All of the WHOIS information was bogus. The address pointed to a a chip manufacturer, I forget which though. The domain have no DNS records. It was just a dead domain. Basically there was no way to track down the owner of this unused domain to make an offer to buy the domain. The registrar wouldn't help. They wouldn't even contact their own customer to ask that they fix their WHOIS information. Maybe I should have made a complaint to ICANN and gotten the domain revoked. To this day the domain still hasn't been used and still has no valid WHOIS or DNS records. What a waste.

  24. Thats risky. by sheetsda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you suppose they'll let you take the domain if you want to switch hosting services? They registered it, it has their info on it, and (I'm guessing) they paid for it (out of money you gave them of course).

  25. A WHOIS horror story by madopal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've had my domain since about 1997. At some point during the 'Net boom, some idiot company harvested a BUNCH of WHOIS info. At the time I had the correct information in there (INCLUDING phone number).

    Well...I got on every telemarketing phone call list imaginable...AS A BUSINESS. You think it's hard stopping residential telemarketing? Wait until you start getting phone calls at your house asking you to buy Pitney Bowes postage equipment, insurance for your employees, etc, etc.

    It was a NIGHTMARE. All I could do was ask the individuals to a) place me on their do not call list, and b) ask where they bought my information from (information that, not a SINGLE COMPANY was able to provide).

    So, since then, I've used a P.O. Box for mail, and I FLAT REFUSE to give a phone number.

    I'll start providing valid information when I know that it isn't going to be harvested by any slimy company out there.

  26. Um no by Seven001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I own a few domains and I never put the right phone number in. I also have an email address strictly set aside for domains only - which catches TONS of spam, and I tend to catch a little bit of snail mail spam as well - usually from the same company that tries to trick people into switching to them and paying $25+ a year. I hate the way that whois info is public though, and you have to pay (usually more than the price of the domain where I register domains) to make it private. It should be automatically private, at no cost. Someone above mentioned something about the reason that is there is for complaints and such - well I just happen to have an idea that could fix that problem easily. Make any complaints or inquiries go through the registrar. Kind of like a registrar private messaging system. It might seem like a lot, but I think it is little to ask to help stop the whois info harvesting and millions of spam emails that get sent as a result of it. ICANN already has a ton of requirements that registrars have to meet, why not one more.

  27. Slashdot? Or Schoolbookdot? by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    Do you believe this is a step in the right direction? Why?

    This sounds like a question from some 5th grade social studies book... Brings back nightmares from those days. Please don't write like this again.

  28. Email in WHOIS by transient · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's important to have a valid email address in WHOIS that goes to a real person. As someone mentioned above, the Internet is cooperative and it's hard to cooperate when you can't communicate. But it's also important to keep spammers from finding your email address.

    Here's a suggestion. I've only been doing this for about a week but it's been effective so far. In WHOIS, list your email address as dns-admin@yourdomain.blah. Configure your mail server to accept email to this address but then send a bounce with "5.1.1 User has moved; please try dnsadmin@yourdomain.blah" message (note the lack of hyphen). Configure dnsadmin@yourdomain.blah to go to your real mailbox.

    This works because no spammer ever uses their real email address, so they'll think their message was accepted and they'll never see the bounce. Meanwhile, a real human being who actually needs to communicate with you will get the bounce with your real address.

    As for physical contact information, the best I've come up with so far is a PO box. But that costs money.

    --

    irb(main):001:0>
  29. Re:Yes I do. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well here's a damn good reason. A lot of people will customize their cars/trucks. Then they want to share their work on the internet. They should be able to post a fake address so they don't have to worry so much about the whois being a map for thieves.

    Because all the car thieves that I know are such avid users of the whois database for looking up domain information. Why I remember that part in Gone in Sixty Seconds where Nicolas Cage used the Network Solutions whois page to lookup the address for the Shelby Mustang he needs to steal. If only the owner had been allowed to falsify his whois contact information his car would have been safe.

    Ever hear of a P.O. Box? They'll protect you just as well without lying or risking the loss of your domain name (or other property).

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  30. Spammers and other questions... by John+Seminal · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why would a spammer need to register a website to send out their spam? How is this going to help eliminate spam? The reason I want a valid WHOIS database is so I can find contact information if there is a problem.

    Second question. Why not have some small fee in order to access the WHOIS database. Make it a dollar charge, that has to be charged to a credit card with correct contact information (for example, they fax you the data). If someone abuses the database, then they get cut off.

    Third question, and the most important. How the hell can we make a better system where the 98% of us who do not abuse resources do not get screwed by a few bad apples who will do anything for a buck. Do we make it a charge, so there can not be an easy profit? Do we have a system where a few trusted people are allowed to forward requests, and block those they know are from the bad apples? How do we identify the bad apples?

    This all pisses me off. I hate it how one person can force the rest of us to NEED locks for doors. It would be better if they did not exsist.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  31. Screw ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is no reason why this information needs to be publicly available. The correct information could be stored privately with ICANN and available through the proper channels (For example: a warrant).

    The one time I used all of my correct information I ended up getting a) prank phone calls, b) calls from people who disagreed with some of the sites messages (think free choice vs. life, not PORN :P).

    The people who are lazy to call end up mailing you. Sure you can setup an account that just collects all of the email and then dumps it, but what about that 1 legitimate email every year or so?

    I was constantly emailed by other domain firm to con me out of more money through false renewal claims (Your domain is about to expire: NetSol).

    If ICANN were really serious about your information being correct it would have done something years ago. These half ass attemtps to enforce a questionable policy don't convince me that they really care.

    I've tried being nice and having all of my information public. Now I'm happy to live on 123 Freedom Lane, Chimichanga New Mexico. :)

  32. Not quite... by Dimensio · · Score: 4, Funny

    You don't just turn off the domain instantly. Attempt to contact the domain holder (they have to have *some* kind of valid contact known to the registrar). If calls/emails/letters are not answered, lock the domain. Tell the holder that if data isn't updated within a certain period of time, the domain registration is forfeit.

    In the case of spammers' domains, take a few extra steps. First, lock the domain right away. Second, instead of attempting to inform the spammer that their domain is locked until the WHOIS data is updated, send an assasin to where they live to have them killed.

  33. Forget the spammers... it's the stalkers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many personal domains are out there? And how many freaks are there online who'd wet themselves over the chance to stalk people whose website the dislike or whose website turns them on or whatever the hell it is that they get off on?

    My websites all point to my former address. I moved because some freak was harassing me and I was worried he was going to show up on my doorstep some day. I didn't update the listing and won't for at least another year, unless I get a PO box, and I'm sure as hell not going to spend the money on that when I'm getting zero benefit on it.

    My registrar has my real contact info. That's all that matters. If someone has a complaint about one of my sites that can't be resolved by emailing me, they can write to my hosting provider or my registrar.

    1. Re:Forget the spammers... it's the stalkers! by Fastolfe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you feel it's necessary to register a DNS domain under a gTLD? That's your decision, and with that decision comes an obligation to provide contact information for activity that occurs under that DNS domain. Just because you're on the Interweb and not the Internet like the rest of us doesn't exempt you from the rules.

      Your registrar isn't going to accept calls in the middle of the night because your PC is infected with a virus or DDoS agent and is saturating my network with traffic. That's not their job. Either publish contact information or get your DNS domain and/or network addresses from a provider that will publish their own information on your behalf.

    2. Re:Forget the spammers... it's the stalkers! by Avihson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never even considered stalkers, I chose anonymity for convenience.
      My registrar emails me too frequently with "special offers" and I get site related junkmail even though my whois data does not point to my address. I can only surmise that the registrar is making a few bucks on the side selling data.

      If there was a valid reason for the FBI or the IP-Police to kick down my door, they can do a dig on me, go to the switch up the road, and pull the line. When I pop out of the door to look at the wires, they can rush me with all their SWAT gear.

      For everyone else - It's the internet, use it to contact me, or lookup the netblock owner, they get a check from me every month. If the law enforcement officers can't do that, they should be kicked back to parking meter duty.

      I have an unlisted phone number for a reason, I'm sure not going to post it in the whois database!

    3. Re:Forget the spammers... it's the stalkers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recently used the network solutions "private listing" feature. For $5/year they put their address/phone number and a constantly changing email address in the WHOIS DB. They answer calls, forward certified mail, and forward email to my private contact info. I maintain full control of the registration.

    4. Re:Forget the spammers... it's the stalkers! by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the point was domains were supposed to be for businesses and orginizations ie places that have headquarters. The only real thing I could see was allowing one contact to be minimal name and email but requiring one valid and complete technical contact. But if you didn;t like the rules when you signed up you should have not aquired a domain. It would be nice if every incomplete entry was purged for noncompliance.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  34. It's the wrong way to go by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. The internet was not designed to be a telephone system or a post office. Anonymity and openness are what made it what it is today. Want a secure communications system? Build one. IP was not designed for businesses and their needs. Closed systems existed before busineses stampeded on to the internet. If they want registered users and trusted boxes, then they should build an alternative network that does not connect to the internet itself. Leave what is, alone.

    2. Spoofing whois is essential for people who wish to use the internet to get messages across that powerful people want suppressed. Or at the very least, powerful people will retaliate.

    For instance:

    mediawhoresonline.com -- the people behind the Horse (out to pasture at the moment) were afraid of retaliation in their personal and private lives. They have some justification for this, for Bush and his people have grown famous for their ruthless vengeance against anyone who crosses them - Valerie Plame, Wilson, Richard Clark, the owners of that restaurant in Texas tht called the cops on the Bush Girls (business shut down for "code violations"), the Funeralgate affair (nailed the whistleblower AND her department). And innumerable others whom we don't hear about because, well, reporters don't want to cross the Bush family either.

    Buzzflash.com also hides their identies for the same reason, I think.

    Now, on to the cultbusters. During the late '90's, a lot of ex-Scientologists went online, mainly on the Usenet on alt.religion.scientology, but also branched out into the web as well. They had to hide their identities: the utter certainty of the destruction of their lives if they ever were outed was paramount. The viciousness of the attacking Sea Org (secret agents oh my) is legendary, and you can check it out at xenu.net, as well as any number of other sites.

    Just don't use the WayBack machine: they purged the history of the internet of all the critical sites with any teeth at the behest of the Hubbardites.

    Now there are others: the Moonies, the nutballs in Japan, any number of small, evil little cults all over the U.S. If you want to expose them, anonymity is key. And anonymity was long held constitutional in the U.S. under the 1st amendment as necessary to demand redress of wrongs without fear of retaliation.

    I fake my whois info, and always will.

    3. Registering users will not stop the spam. Oh please. People who send billions of messages and make millions of dollars aren't scared of fines or jail time. They're rich; they won't see real jail. This registration crackdown is happening because the control freaks in law enforcement can't stand seeing anonymous communications. It's like nails on chalkboard to them. I think Pratchett said it best when he wrote that cops, if they had their way, would make everyone sit at home, at their tables, with their hands on top of the table where the cops can see them.

    It's not like we haven't seen this coming. The jail doors are clanging shut, and they won't let us bang on any pipes in Morse code without the ability to listen in any time they'd like.

  35. Never again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've owned my domain since the late 90's, and for the first couple years I had legit info in the .whois dbase.

    I used to write a lot about moronic white supremicist groups around the country.

    One day I saw my home phone and address being passed around on skinhead message boards, and the real-life threats began.

    I'll never provide legit info again, ever. I'd rather lose my domain than have someone come to my door and threaten to kill my "nigger loving" family, again.

  36. Companies and individuals are different by gorbachev · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I will never, ever register any of my personal domains with valid registration information. There's absolutely no way.

    I will not have all the people who don't like what I publish on my websites harrass me at my home address, which is the only "valid" address I currently have to use in my whois records. I will not give that information out in public for any reason. There are way too many net.kooks out there for me to volunteer my home address.

    I will also not pay to get a p.o. box to avoid being harrassed. Why should I pay to be left alone?

    For businesses, however, I do agree, the whois records should be valid and uptodate. This includes the spamming parasites, who've made it an art form to forge every single record of theirs they possibly can.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  37. How can they prove it? by boobsea · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I, for one, refuse to let my personal information become public.

    What if I were the operator of a website that contained opinions that were very contraversial? One example I can think of is the abortion debate. There are extremists on both sides who will spend every waking moment trying to ruin the lives of people on the other side of the debate.

    Do I want to invite people to my house to vanalize my property or burglarize me if I can help it? Certianly not.

    I have always used fake information, except for my phone and email contact (I figure that its pretty immune to what I'm worried about, I can filter spam, etc) which I leave in case my registrar accidentialy forgets who my domain belongs to.

    How do they know I do not live at this address? Are they going to send someone out? What if its just a drop box for mail?

  38. Why require accurate contact info? by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you believe this is a step in the right direction? Why?

    Just firing from the hip here, but corporations and real estate have to have accurate contact information too. I'm guessing this has to do with preventing squatting, and with resolving legal issues which involve the owner of the property in question. Both of these issues have correlaries in domain name space.

  39. Hell no! by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All registrats who don't care should lose their ability to register names! So many times i've complained about faulty information to some registra, and their reply was "there is nothing we can do about" - well if not you who the fuck else! Idiots.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  40. It's a crappy rule; change it. by wurp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Three years ago some jackass from /. thought it would be funny to call up my home phone and leave a nasty drunken message because I disagree with him about the current SUV craze. The reason he was able to do this was because (stupid me) I kept accurate whois information for my domain names. Had I pissed him off enough, there was nothing keeping him from coming to my home.

    Requiring public, accurate whois information is idiotic. I think a requirement for accurate information held in confidence by ICAN is a good idea (to be available to the police with a warrant). Before you run out there cheering for accurate public information, think about how you would feel if every email and every web posting you made had your home phone & address on it. If everyone were sane and reasonable, it would be good. Since everyone's not, and someone can anonymously e.g. burn your house down, it's bad.

    Spammers are just going to get phones with junk info and PO boxes. This can only hurt, not help.

    I'm surprised to see the responses I'm seeing on a site where most people ostensibly argue for free speech and anonymity.

    1. Re:It's a crappy rule; change it. by AaronD12 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree... that information should be private.

      I just registered a domain using my correct information (my registrar would not allow an "invalid" e-mail address), and voila... I've gotten over 500 spam a day on that e-mail address. Previous to the registration, I was getting about 1/10th of that, which is still far too many.

      As long as we follow the rules and fill out valid information, there will be bastards that won't follow the rules and will take advantage of us.

  41. Will this limit freedom of expression? by thesaur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The proposal to force all domains to use valid WHOIS data would be a boon to law-enforcement efforts. But that leads to another potential concern.

    In the US, it's not a problem to express yourself. You can say whatever you like about the government and get away with it. OK, not quite anything. In other countries, however, including western countries like Germany and France, freedom of expression is non-existant -- you may only say what the government allows you to say. In the two countries I've mentioned, it's not much of a problem, because they've basically only banned racist expressions. But there are more than enough other countries (China, anyone?) that actively work to suppress their citizens from expressing themselves freely. For dissidents in such countries, false WHOIS data may be necessary for freedom of expression. Is ICANN trying to help such governments crack down on their citizens?

    If ICANN wishes to enforce this rule, I agree with the procedure outlined in the parent post, but disagree that spammer's domains should be treated separately.

    The problem is, how do you recognize a spammer's domain? If you simply look at the "to" address, it will result in a lot of legitimate sites getting spammed, because a real spammer will fake the from address. If you look at the originating sender, I've had enough (virus) spam that apparently originated at my mail server. The header information was modified -- the IP did not belong to my mail server. But you can't backtrace to find the domain if the IP is in a dynamically allocated range. Once again, 1:0 for the spammers.

    The few honest souls who are dumb enough to use valid information will get caught anyway. Now if we are talking about domains that are linked in spam, that's a little easier to deal with, but there is still a large potential for abuse. So a spammer doesn't like a site. Voila, take them down. In fact, anyone could effectively disrupt any website they like.

    Of course, spammers should be prosecuted, provided they are within the jurisdiction of a state that cares (e.g., the US). But intellegent spammers work offshore anyway, which puts them beyond the reach of any western regulatory body except ICANN. We can go after their domains, but there's no easy solution to determine which domains are pure spam.

  42. Get a Lawyer by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

    If your privacy is that critical, hire a lawyer to act as your agent.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  43. I don't feel like publishing my personal data by drwho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I own my domains, not some company. My I am not going to publish my phone number, and get more junk calls like the postal spam I get due to the fact I used my legitimate address (at the time) for registering my domain(s) years ago.

    What's next, publishing my SSN and birthday in whois data?

    I know some other countries (france, for example) are very strict and will only issue domains to a company with a tax ID and right to the name. Well, go right ahead france, but I think the generic domains (com/net/org) should remain open to all without prying eyes.

    If we wanted such open access to domain owner data, how how about a .inc TLD, with data linked to corporate registration number and state and country of inc.? and leave the rest of us alone!

  44. False Entitlements by firewood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The system has been abused for year. So, I'm sure there are those who feel entitled to the privacy and anonynimity they've been able to get for free so far.

    I liken them to homeowners and small businesses who are dumping their pollution directly into the river, and then complaining when told that the same new environmental laws which apply to mega-toxic-corp upsteam also apply to them. However, just like the river, which may supply drinking water to people living downstream, DNS is a public service hosted on other peoples servers, not your own. If you want to use a public service (as opposed to running your own private DNS server for your buddies, etc.) you may have to abide by public rules.

    The beginnings of a clean-up mechnism are simple. Notify people to clean up their DNS records and then randomly snail mail letters to a percentage of domain owners. Lock domains for owners who do not respond.

    If you want your privacy and anonynimity, which was not implicit in the original rules for DNS service, pay for a proxy service (electronic equivalent of a PO box, answering service, subsidiary in the Bahama's, etc.). But don't depend on being entitled to a mechanism which makes you look exactly like joe toxic spammer at zero cost, and which leads to a Tragedy of the Commons.

  45. Because I want a persistent address by phr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If I have a lower level domain under some ISP, then I'm trapped with them. If my ISP's service goes down the tubes, or if they go out of business altogether, or if they jack up their prices or whatever, I can't switch ISP's without losing email or web contact with anyone I gave my address or URL to. I move around a lot; my physical addresses and phone numbers change all the time. My internet domain is the most stable point of contact that I have.

    I had a stable email address with an ISP for about ten years, but the ISP discontinued my service plan and said I'd have to change addresses if I wanted to stay with them, so that's why I registered a domain, so I have a permanent net address that I can give out to friends and acquaintances. That doesn't mean I want it advertised to the public. It's like an unlisted phone number. I'm ok with the registrar having my contact info in case law enforcement needs to find me, but I see absolutely no reason they have to publish it in WHOIS.

  46. Its about time. by heybo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally I am so glad to hear this. About 100 or so of those complaints came from our company. The biggest tool spammers use to cover their tracks is bad whois info. How can you serve papers on someone if you don't have an address? Even the wimpy CanSpam law can't be enforced without an address. Without one its not worth the disk space it takes up.

    This information is also needed for admin work between networks. This information is used by Systems Admins to contact each other when things get weird between networks not just for catching spammers. It a great time saver when a sick server on a network is hitting ours to be able to type "whois" and find an email address and a phone number for the person you need to talk with to fix the problem. These are helpful calls between networks to keep it all working. Its not so much contacting the owner as much as contacting the SysAdmin.

    I do see the problem with personal sites and whois info that contains personal information. What we do for the sites we host that aren't corporate sites is we carry the Techinal Zone Contact Address and phone number as the address and phone numder for the site. This way the site can be contacted and the owners can be indirectly contacted without their home addresses or phone numbers exposed to the strange. This way if some weirdo calls they get to talk to us. Most hosting companies will do this. If they don't move your site to one that does.

    You can't complain about having to have updated information on your whois. You agreed to it when you bought your domain. It was in the EULA.

    Besides how can you enjoy the smell of burning mail servers if you don't know where to build the fire?

    Not that I would ever do anything like that ;)